SS vs. Quakertown Community Sch. Dist.

Memorandum

This matter arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. On May 22, 2014, I issued an interim order, directing the parties to clarify the issues and their positions in this matter.2 In response to the interim order, the Parents submitted a brief, and the District submitted a brief with 15 exhibits. Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, and for reasons stated below, I now dismiss this matter sua sponte.

The history of litigation between the parties, and the extensive procedural history of this due process hearing, are documented in the five (5) prehearing orders and one (1) interim order issued in this matter. For context, a prior due process hearing between these parties was resolved by a Settlement Agreement and Release dated October 25, 2012 (Settlement or Agreement). The parties then engaged in litigation about the Settlement itself, resulting in a determination that the Settlement is binding on the parties. A.S. v. Office for Dispute Resolution, 2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 72 (Pa. Commw. Ct. Jan. 24, 2014).3 The Parents then initiated these proceedings, originally alleging that the District breached the Settlement, and seeking enforcement or specific performance. After explaining my lack of jurisdiction to hear such claims, the Parents amended their complaint twice. The Parents’ Third Amended Complaint (Complaint) is before me.

In the various prehearing communications, and in the five prehearing orders issued in this matter, and during the hearing session, I have reiterated that I do not have authority to enforce private settlement agreements. In the lead up to this hearing, I generously read the Complaint to include a claim that the District breached its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the Student. More specifically, I determined that I could hear a claim concerning a denial of FAPE resulting from the District’s alleged failure to implement the Settlement. My jurisdiction was premised on the alleged denial of FAPE, not the alleged breach of contract. I also determined that evidence of breach of the Settlement is not, by itself, evidence of a denial of FAPE. Rather, the Parents bore the burden to establish that the Student required specially designed instruction (SDI) and/or related services in order to receive a meaningful educational benefit, and that such SDI and/or related services were denied as a result of the District’s breach of the Settlement.4 I explained all of this to the Parents countless times in many ways both before and during the hearing session.